24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)

Posted by Kaapeine 1 hour ago

24-bit/192kHz music downloads and why they make no sense (2012)(people.xiph.org)

57 points | 76 comments

stego-tech 1 hour ago|

I cannot hear the difference between 16/44.1 (and by extension, 16/48) and High-Res Content generally, be they HDCD, SACD, or just straight-up Masters from Qobuz. This is on multiple sets of equipment, ranging from El Cheapo earbuds all the way to HD800 cans and full-fledged tower speakers being bi-amped.

That’s not why I go for High-Res stuff, though.

It’s all about archival, at least for me. With a 24/192 Master in FLAC or ALAC, I can downsample to whatever the destination form factor is. I can transcode to a 320kbps MP3, or a 16/48 WAV stream for a smart speaker, or a 24/96 stream for the theater. The point isn’t that I can hear the difference, it’s the fear that I might lose something irrecoverable by sticking with lower-quality files for bulk storage. Once data has been discarded, it cannot be retrieved, and that influences my preference for storage (and is also why my BD/UHD rips are into MKVs, no re-encoding).

Now that being said, I will absolutely hem and haw and ABX different releases to determine if I opt for the 16/44.1 CD rip of an album from the 80s or the new 202X remaster in 24/192 (spoiler: almost always the former), and I absolutely prefer anything with classic instruments (Jazz, Classical) in higher-quality formats because of a subjective perception of a wider, clearer sound stage, though this is almost certainly a psychological effect from performing in concert bands and orchestras rather than physical or objective in nature.

Like I tell newcommers: if it sounds better enough to you to warrant the purchase price, then that’s all that really matters. Enjoy the hobby.

rahimnathwani 1 hour ago||

The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different."

It may be simultaneously true that:

A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and

B) For a particular song, the best commercially available 44.1kHz/16-bit version may not be the best commercially available version

zamadatix 1 hour ago|

While 100% true, I'd phrase B as:

"The quality of the particular mastering can still make a noticeable difference regardless of the ability for the digital sampling rates to perfectly represent it perceptually"

Just to be clear that the statement applies to any such releases, not just 44.1 kHz @ 16-bit ones.

z_open 1 hour ago||

As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.

mingus88 39 minutes ago||

That’s true, but I consider myself a collector. Think of how a comic book collector operates.

If I have an option to get a 16bit version of a recording or a high-res version, I choose the highest quality version very time

Same with a physical copy. A limited edition, better quality vinyl LP is more attractive if you are going through the trouble of curating a collection.

I’ve been curating a music library of digital files since before the iPod was released and I will always go for the highest quality version out of principle. I can always downsample it to any thing that makes sense.

nntwozz 1 hour ago||

This is perfect, thank you this goes straight into my long-term memory bank.

On a tangent, whenever someone mentions LP sounding warmer or whatever I like to point out that I prefer wax cylinders (a.k.a. phonograph cylinders).

rz2k 10 minutes ago||

My good enough amplifier and DAC combo claims up to 24bit/192kHz, I use a cheap optical interface from my computer that claims up to 32bit/192kHz, and the streaming service I use serves most albums at 24bit/44.1kHz.

It would have cost the same for the entire stack to be 16bit/44.1kHz at every step, but with excessive resolution I can control the volume anywhere. The bits right before the analog conversion at the end are essentially the same whether I turn down the volume in the software player, the operating system, or the DAC/amplifier.

Tsarp 1 hour ago||

This really is driving a muscle/super car, or drinking expensive wine. At the end none of specs or tests matter. It is a form of art. If it makes the listener feel better (even if its just psychological) then its probably worth it.

munchler 1 hour ago||

To expand on this a bit, I appreciate some audio overkill because, if I do hear sizzle or distortion, it eliminates one possible reason and helps me figure out what’s actually happening.

It’s like having gigabit internet to my house: I don’t actually need it, but when a website is slow, I know the problem isn’t in my internet connection.

smilekzs 32 minutes ago|||

Well, at least there are objective performance benchmarks on cars, and some of them are okay proxies of performance in motorsports.

https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/carwow-quarter-mile-400-metre-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nords...

meowface 1 hour ago|||

Correct. I've paid for Tidal for a decade because I just like the peace of mind that it's closer to the original recording. I'm sure it's mostly placebo, but I like it.

yellowapple 58 minutes ago||

It's also sort of an inverted “Van Halen demanding a bowl of M&Ms with the brown ones removed” thing for me, too. The vast majority of my Tidal listening happens over Bluetooth, so that 24bit/192kHz FLAC stream is just gonna get downsampled to 16bit/48kHz anyway because that's all any Bluetooth speaker or headset is capable of doing — but the fact that it's an option in the first place signals that other things are being done right, too (namely: that Tidal's whole “we're the streaming service that pays artists the most per listen” premise actually has some semblance of merit rather than being complete marketing bullshit; while recording quality ain't the strongest signal possible for that, it's certainly a good sign when musicians/publishers are willing to send over the highest-bitrate lossless recordings they've got and not just the same ol' compressed-to-shit MPEG audio you can yank off YouTube for free).

wat10000 1 hour ago|||

I'd distinguish between differences that anyone can detect but some may not care about, and differences that may not be objectively detectable at all. Muscle cars, at least, are different in a way that anyone can see. Push that pedal to the floor and it feels different from a Honda Civic or whatever. Whether that difference is actually interesting or good is, of course, a matter of taste. Whereas audiophile nonsense is often indistinguishable even to the connoisseur and depends entirely on some form of self-deception. Still could be worth it, depending on what one considers worthy.

mock-possum 1 hour ago||

That’s actually a really good comparison, especially because - yes I can hear the difference between an excruciatingly lossless digitization of a piece of music that I’m intimately familiar with, played back on expertly configured hardware… but the difference is so little, that most of the time, I’m find just listening to it at medium high quality streaming on a pair of <$50 headphones.

I’ve played with the nice toys, and they are nice, but for 100x the price, they barely deliver 1.5x the experience.

jerf 1 hour ago||

If you can't hear the squeals of the plants [1] in the studio's reception area, are you really getting the full experience of a piece of music?

[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/world/plants-make-sounds-scn

Blackthorn 1 hour ago|

Oh great. And here I thought that fantasy literature where forest elves could hear the screams of the plants they stepped on when they walked was just that -- fantasy.

SketchySeaBeast 1 hour ago||

Triffid music.

cozzyd 1 hour ago||

What a human centric view. I like my music to scare neighbor's pets.

hobonation 1 hour ago||

Counter: An ultra high bit rate solves the problem and you can stop worrying if it's the weakest link.

You can the focus on other things.

Example: I Bought the best skis possible. Now I know I need to just focus on my skills and not blame the equipment.

hackingonempty 1 hour ago|

The point of this article and video is there is no problem with 16-bit 44-kHZ PCM. It thoroughly covers the audible range and is there is absolutely no need for more when distributing music for humans to listen to.

The problem is the people spreading myths and disinformation out of ignorance or to promote their enterprise.

The weak links are producers/mastering-engineers, speakers/headphones and the room when using speakers.

HelloUsername 42 minutes ago||

(2012) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310 316 comments

(2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8689231 424 comments

(2015) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10520639 228 comments

(2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127633 428 comments

(2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19318898 314 comments

me551ah 1 hour ago|

Nobody downloads music these days and everybody just streams. Audio at 24 bit still takes a small fraction of the bandwidth that 1080p video takes, so I don’t understand the hate for it.

I use a DAC by focusrite which can do 24-bit, and if I want to listen to higher fidelity audio on my planer headphones then I should be able to. Why should I limit myself to 16-bit

mingus88 33 minutes ago|

Counterpoint: bandcamp is doing well. Vinyl sales are doing well.

If I like an artist that I find on streaming, I buy an LP and get a lossless download for free. I still have a music library and I will never rent my favorite music.

Artists prefer to connect directly with their fans and BC is probably the best platform for people who care to pay and support acts directly. They have high res downloads and I import them.

More comments...